[box]RVWD is my abbreviation for Religious Vocabulary Word of the Day. (You can read my introduction to the RVWD series here.) I do not intend for these word investigations to be exhaustive, but I hope they stimulate some thinking about assumptions. Possibly they will help with honest evaluations about what is truth and what is unnecessary baggage in life. [/box]

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think there is any need to get hung up on two of the main verses (Matthew 11:12, Luke 16:16) where Jesus speaks of people somehow using force “to take” the kingdom of heaven. Other passages make it clear that Jesus is not advocating the use of force to “convert” people or demand they believe who He is, even though some people have been known to use these verses as an excuse for a charade of that very thing. God did use force for certain purposes in the Old Testament scenarios, and there is reason to believe He, himself, will use force in some ways later in the timeline; but there is never an example or command to use violence or coercion to “make” people follow Him as a matter of conviction and love. No one can really follow someone they don’t really believe in anyway. This is a key difference between forcing someone to observe a religious ritual and the inability to force anyone to have faith.

Still, the verses do use an odd combination of the words suffer, violence, and force. I investigated the word suffer a couple of weeks ago, coming to the conclusion that it is not always a negative word in the historical Biblical context, even though it tends to be in our English language daily use. It seems we might as well start here with the same realization for the words violence and force. These words speak of an extreme of effort or intensity, but do not always mean bad results, even in the English.

My dictionary ❶ lists the second definition of violence as “intense, often devastatingly explosively powerful force or energy.” Yes, it gives the example of of a hurricane and says devastating, but there is also the meaning that it is something that brings about great change, not always easy, but not necessarily bad. The fourth entry says it might also mean involving “strength of feeling, conduct, or expression…” Considering that violence can be used to overturn a bad situation to a good one, or getting to the heart of a matter that benefits from nitty gritty discussion, it can also be a good thing. A mundane example is the “violence” of a reaction with gasoline in an engine to drive the car.

Everyone in the articles I reviewed (see links below)❷ seems to agree that the Greek word being translated as violence and force in the first part of the Matthew verse and in John is biazo❸. They also seem to mostly agree that it is grammatically a “passive voice” of expression. This use of “passive voice” is brought up a lot in discussing translations, often with the implication that if you don’t understand Greek, you can’t understand the English translations of the Bible. I found the explanation below❹ helpful, as it de-mystified the idea:

 

Passive Voice Usage (always transitive)Observe the following sentences in which the subject is acted upon by someone not explicitly named.οὐχὶ δύο στρουθία ἀσσαρίου πωλεῖταιAren’t two sparrows sold for a penny? (Matthew 10:19)ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαιYour sins are forgiven (Mark 2:5)  ἕκαστον γὰρ δένδρον ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ γινώσκεται For every tree is known by its fruit (Luke 6:44)   Notice that the subject of these verbs would be the object if the verb were active voice. This is the basic meaning of the passive voice.   When translating Greek middle/passive forms of transitive verbs you may need to try both middle and passive translations to see which makes best sense in the context.

 

There are two other Greek words that get translated to “violent” or “violence” in the New Testament❸, depending on the translation. Hormena literally means “a rush,” while diaseio specifically means “to shake violently.” There are also two that are commonly translated “force.” Bebaios is an adjective denoting “firm” or “secure,” which is a very positive use. Harpazo is the Greek word used in the second part of Matthew 11:12, and means “to snatch away.” The trouble is that the structure of the sentences and the supposed metaphorical use could still be “understood” in various ways depending on what a person makes of the context.

In Matthew chapter 11, Jesus seems to use verse 12 to segue from explaining who John the Baptist is to saying how fickle his audience is. He uses the description of violence to particularly label the time period from John the Baptist until His current point in time. A cursory review of history shows that this was not an unusually violent time period, even against those who follow God, so it is unlikely that He is saying these people or circumstance are more violent than any others.

Jesus is indentifying a pivotal element, the kingdom of heaven, and how people will respond. The way violence and force are used here, it doesn’t seem all that clear if the violence is positive or negative. All of the metaphors after verse 12 are negative, so that could be the vein of the whole presentation. On the other hand, the negative examples don’t come until after He has said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” In fact, right before verse 12, He says those least in the kingdom are greater than John, which is a positive and hopeful statement for those who follow. Some reviewers draw on other scriptures as possible de-coding help, but when a certain Biblical passage is distinctly important to decoding another, we are usually carefully pointed in that direction.

I, personally, don’t put it past Jesus to be making a play on words. Not that He is trying to trick anyone. From what I see, He uses this way of communicating sometimes to get the hearers (or readers) to think, or to speak of a concept that they won’t really understand until later. If it is an idea that is super important, it is repeated in others ways and places to make sure it is understood. So, either the point of these two verses is made clear elsewhere and we are not seeing the connection, or they are a part of the story that is not necessary for everyone to totally comprehend. There are several parables where the details are not completely understood, because we don’t have the same cultural context. That doesn’t interfere with understanding the simple good news of who Jesus Christ is. Recall Nicodemus struggling with the idea of being “born again.”

Speaking of plays on words, recall Nicodemus struggling with the idea of being “born again.” Since this metaphor is used, as well as multiple upon multiple references are made to believing on His name, to gain access to His kingdom, I’m not, again, not too concerned about figuring out exactly what is meant in the Matthew and John verses by “violence.” It is interesting that birth really is a violent event in a person’s life, both for the birther and the birthee. The mother must exert great effort, basically whether she wants to or not, to give birth to the baby. I wonder if that is how it is for God to bring us through the birth process into His kingdom. He obviously has more strength and control than human mothers, but our free will and sinful state have to be dealt with. As for the helpless baby, it gets shoved violently through the birth canal (we can stick to the original and usual process for the metaphor, right?) into a new existence, through no power of it’s own, but it definitely experiences the process. The baby “forces his way into” the world, in the passive sense.

We can at least come away with a confirmation that following Jesus Christ is not a low-key, boring life. Someone who has truly realized what is going on will have a violent reaction of some sort to the message and it’s followers. They must, for they must either reject it in anger or accept it as truth. This doesn’t count those who are just angry about life in general, or possibly reasonably fed up with man-made religion and self-righteous persons. That is different. But when faced with the actual life changing understanding of the magnificent love and sovereignty of God (and who but God really knows when that has occurred for a person), we must either passionately return His love or vehemently oppose Him. That much is clear from the simple message of who Jesus Christ is, and the expositions in the Bible to show how God had this planned all along.

I disagree with the commentators who claim “understanding this verse is crucial.” God does not make our most important choices obscure, like He is playing some game with us to confuse us. The things that do seem difficult to understand are either due to complexities of God that bring awe, but not confusion; or they are because of other people telling us that following God is complicated. Regardless of exactly what these two verses mean, we can choose to forcefully take hold of the truth because God gives us the grace and strength to do so if we will but let Him.

 

 

---

 

❶ Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4^th Edition

❷ Here are links to a some of the websites I reviewed on these verses:

Taking the Kingdom by Force

The Violent

Kingdom Violence

❸Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

❹ Hellenistic Greek © 2009
Lesson 22: Present Middle and Passive

[box]RVWD is my abbreviation for Religious Vocabulary Word of the Day. (You can read my introduction to the RVWD series here.) I do not intend for these word investigations to be exhaustive, but I hope they stimulate some thinking about assumptions. Possibly they will help with honest evaluations about what is truth and what is unnecessary baggage in life. [/box]

This is going to be short, because it really isn’t that complicated, from what I can see. A survey of the Old and New Testaments (use the search function in the blueletterbible.org) seems to show the use of the phrase “a word from the Lord” in two distinctly different categories. Not surprisingly, one category is applicable before Jesus came to earth, and one is how the early church used the terminology.

In the Old Testament, people rarely had the advantage of God’s spirit directly with them. As such, God made use of trusted prophets to communicate many times. These were men and women who could make it very clear that they were, in fact, speaking “a word of the Lord.” It is worth noting, however, that even then, it was not that people needed constant direction to make good decisions. Before the time of Abraham, there is evidence that people just knew and remembered things about God, unless they had chosen to turn away from Him. After Abraham, and the subsequent founding of the nation of Israel (which you might be thinking about wrongly), people still knew, but often disregarded this knowledge. It was commonly because of wanting to help them avoid trouble from their own horrible choices that God would send special word.

The time when Jesus was on earth, He was able to speak uniquely as the very real mouthpiece of God. It is notable that he didn’t feel the need to always claim to be doing so. Even when He made statements about His own deity, it was not with heavy-handed proclamations. He didn’t need to wow anyone with such grand introductions to his teachings and warning. He just spoke the truth and it either healed people’s souls or made them angry enough to kill.

When the beautiful news of His death and resurrection were being shared, THAT was predominantly the “word of the Lord” among believers. Over and over that phrase is used when referring to telling others about who Jesus was and why it matters. Sometimes, they were just referring back to what they had physically heard Jesus say before he left earth. Even then, it was based on the confirmation of more than one person.

There were some prophecies about events. Counsel was given and encouragement enjoyed. But the advent of the Holy Spirit made it unnecessary for one person to be an important conduit of communication from God to other followers of Jesus Christ. There are even warnings given to believers to carefully test all that is told to them. With this model for the church, any claim to have “a word from the Lord” for someone else seems fairly presumptuous if there is no other confirmation to the individual himself being spoken to.

While I was researching this, I found this article about the “word of God,” and just how powerful it really is. I, for one, would be pretty careful about claiming I have a special revelation for someone else! While God the Father is totally approachable because of what Jesus Christ has done for us, and I am very sure of speaking the truth of that, I will tread lightly when it comes to speaking dogmatic, specific guidance or correction into other people’s lives. That is the stuff cults and pseudo-Christian religions are made of.

[box]RVWD is my abbreviation for Religious Vocabulary Word of the Day. (You can read my introduction to the RVWD series here.) I do not intend for these word investigations to be exhaustive, but I hope they stimulate some thinking about assumptions. Possibly they will help with honest evaluations about what is truth and what is unnecessary baggage in life. [/box]

The word theology is not in any of the 8 most common English translations or paraphrases of the Bible. Still, one must ask, “Does the lack of a specific word nullify or diminish the concept, or the application of the concept?”  To consider this, let’s begin by breaking down the word itself.

The parts of the word theology are very basic and easy to define. Theo- does, in fact, mean “God” or “god.” It is said to be derived from the Greek theos, but that word is of uncertain Indo-European origin, of which there is not written record. This unknown Indo-European word dhewes is surmised to mean “to storm, breathe.” As words, none of these has a primary usuage connection to the God of the Bible.

Any student is familiar with the suffix -logy, and has probably been told it means “to study.” This is an implied meaning. It more specifically means

1) “to speak of (something in particular)” or

2) a “science, doctrine, or theory.”

I suggest that 2) could be expanded to: “all the words used to speak of certain subject in an attempt to study or explain it.” In reality, the word theology is most often used to designate “that someone has obtained an academic degree which gives them an honored position of expertise that others are in need of benefitting from.”

What should be discussed is whether this is the perspective presented in the Bible and if it is a useful approach for those who would seek the God of the Bible.

The case could be made that we all “study” someone we love, in order to know them and love them better. In that sense, we should all be pursuing theology. And, surely, along the way, we all get encouragement and advice from those around us on the best way and attitude for proceeding in relationships.

The fact remains that no one can have the relationship for us. There is no one who can become an expert in marriage, for example, and then create our marriage relationship for us. Even if a couple goes in for weekly counseling of some sort, or gets regular words of encouragement from friends, the bulk of the time and effort has to be the couple’s or all is for naught. The commitment to the marriage has to be on the part of the two people involved or it simply doesn’t exist. To say it another way, there is no degree in psychology or family therapy that can empower an outsider to impact other people’s relationships to the same effect as their commitment to each other.

Yet, the Bible says “some will be teachers,” so doesn’t that imply that we need experts to teach us about important spiritual issues? Well, it also says a lot about parents teaching their children, and pretty obviously parents are not expected (by God, anyway) to go to school to get a degree in parenting. The model is more that those experienced in and matured by the rigors of life are to pass on their knowledge to those who will ask and listen. There is also the strong suggestion that such will happen based on meaningful relationship with the mature person, because any truly helpful advice has to come from a place of real insight into the details of a person’s life. No two situations, children, or marriages are exactly the same. Principles are good, but people most often need help getting through the nitty gritty of challenges, and a source of personal kind words, as well as advice.

All that being said, the crux of the matter is that if the use of the word theology:

• distances you from God, because only experts can really know Him, or
• keeps you from helping others, because only experts can really help, or
• repels you from God, because experts are often pompous

then its use is detrimental.

If the use of the word theology is inconsequential to your understanding of who God is, that is okay, because there are plenty of other words that do a better job of describing

• how and why God made us, and
• how He wants us to know and follow Him.

Jesus’s words as recorded in Mark 12:30 are “AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.”  I don’t think anyone needs a degree in theology to do that.

 

Resources I used for this word study:

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Indexed Fourth Edition

blueletterbible.org

New American Standard Bible

Cruden’s Complete Concordance (Zondervan Classic Reference Series)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[box]RVWD is my abbreviation for Religious Vocabulary Word of the Day. (You can read my introduction to the RVWD series here.) I do not intend for these word investigations to be exhaustive, but I hope they stimulate some thinking about assumptions. Possibly they will help with honest evaluations about what is truth and what is unnecessary baggage in life. [/box]

Have you ever been reading a Jane Austen novel and wondered why the English call their neighborhood religious liaisons vicars? It isn’t a word in the Bible. Usually religious systems that are trying to build off of Biblical status will at least re-use Biblical vocabulary to help legitimize themselves. The answer about vicar seems to be two-fold and political, a simple review of history indicates.

First of all, the Catholic organization, which a certain English monarch was trying to get out from under the political thumb of, had already used the term “priest” pretty thoroughly. To use it again would be too close to conceding to the Catholic format. If the Catholics had “done it right,” then there was no need to break away. Such is the use of vocabulary in political propaganda.

However, the English monarchy was not actually seeking to free anyone from religious authority. They wanted that strictly maintained, for political reasons. They wanted representatives out in the villages, but with the distinct message that these men (for men they all were at that time) answered and reported to higher religious persons, who were closer to the throne.

It is true that at the higher levels of English religious government (it was pretty much the English monarchy that ruled Britain, though the exact borders of subjugation varied with time), the titles of bishop were still used, but they might have felt that had more clout as a ruling office. They did throw in the prefix “Arch-,” to the highest offices, giving those roles a loftier ring. It had already been used in the ranks of English nobility with “success.”

So, where did the word vicar come from? It is thought to have traveled from Latin to Old French to Middle English. It has the same Latin root as the word vicarious, which most of us are more familiar with. The basic meaning of both words is “a substitute,” or one who “represents in the place of another.”

The designation of rector seemed to have been used interchangeably with vicar, but the definitions show that rector means “ruler”, and that a vicar was lower than a rector. This difference also showed up in how they were paid, a vicar having less control over his own income. However, as would be expected in a political-religious system, the titles and offices were based on noble rank, at least at first.

I could not find anything easily on the Church of England’s website about their current structure, beyond listing major provinces and dioceses (which according to the dictionary is just an ancient way of saying house or region in government-speak). There was promise of mention of vicars in pdfs, but when I tried to follow that, it became quite a dense maze of material. I did find this chart which shows the probably hierarchy in the Church of England around 1820, as well as some modern definitions.

Maybe by now you are also remembering other neighborhood religious titles such as parson and curate. Those seem to be the lowest of the low in terms of the political ranking and payment. A common person could even hold these jobs, because they were usually in locations that more noble personages eschewed. This churchsociety.org attempt at explaining all the roles and titles within the Church of England shows that it may be challenging for even the English people to understand. And it is subject to change.

There were even a few places where the title priest hung on, in spite of all these efforts at renaming things. This goes to show that even governments can only do so much to effect people’s choice of vocabulary, even if it superimposes it’s own power structure. Not only that, but some people take on the accepted government-speak and continue with doing what they were doing before. Some people are enough out of reach and unimportant enough that the government doesn’t kill them for using the wrong words.

All of this begs the question: Do people need a religious representative to help them connect with God? According to the New Testament, the answer is no. We learn from the Holy Spirit, we learn from each other, and we learn from those more experienced and mature, but never under a ruling religious class with authority to punish us or forgive our sin. We are constantly warned as individuals to evaluate all that we are told.

Even Jesus was not simply a vicar, or substitute. He did something for us we could not do at all by ourselves, something that if we had tried to do would not have yielded any worthwhile result. If we have any vicar, it might be said to be the Holy Spirit, but he also does nothing to stand between us and our Savior, but guides us to be in confident communion with the Father because of our inheritance with Christ.